From a Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed about District of Columbia public school chancellor Michelle Rhee’s firing 241 teachers (about 6% of the total) for poor performance:

The mass dismissals follow a landmark agreement Ms. Rhee negotiated with the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) at the end of June. The quid pro quo was this: Good teachers would get more money (including a 21.6% pay increase through 2012 and opportunities for merit pay). In exchange, bad teachers could be shown the door.

At the time, many gave the teachers union credit for approving this deal. Here’s how another New York-based newspaperdescribed the contract:

“Teachers’ unions around the country are realizing that they can either participate in shaping reforms or have others’ reforms forced upon them. The latest example comes from Washington, where the union has wisely negotiated and ratified a contract that gives the city greater leeway to pay, promote or fire teachers based on performance.”

[Emphasis added]

Seriously? Another New York-based newspaper?

Process of elimination tells you:

1) It’s not the New York Post, which WSJ overlord Rupert Murdoch also owns

2) It’s not the New York Daily News, which just doesn’t talk that way

3) It’s not Newsday, which just doesn’t matter

No, it’s the New York Times, which Murdoch would like to either buy or destroy.

And it’s pathetic for the Wall Street Journal to descend to this level.

2 Responses to WSJ Obliterates NYT

What? Another blog post about articles appearing in New York City newspapers?

Looking forward to your return to the Boston media scene… The practice of avoiding all mention of your newspaper rival can be found just as easily — and repeatedly — in the Boston Herald. The Boston Globe often takes higher ground, such as this morning.